x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

  • #101

    Here you can learn mate with K, N and B against K

    https://www.chessable.com/chess-endgames/

    In the book "100 Endgames You Should Know" you have a very nice technique, which I am using.

    In the book "Essential Endings: Mating with B + N" you have another technique. This book is for free. 

    Why to learn this? You will get better in the coordination between these figures, which is not that easy for most players.

  • #102

    The only way I could see FIDE changing the rules is if they made the 50 move into whatever the minimum amount of moves required was to checkmate for that material. 

  • #103

    As tested by an engine.

  • #104

    Guys, I know how to mate with knight and bishop. I did it against stockfish multiple times at maximum level and was able to do it in 37 moves most of the time, occasionally 40. Knight and Bishop mates aren't a problem for me, that was just an example. I'm just saying for people who don't know how to do them, or aren't good at it, 50 moves is cutting a little too close, GIVEN that it can take up to 33 MOVES with PERFECT play. Also, the endgames like 2 bishops vs knight, which can take up to 78 moves. You are basically immediately declaring endgames with 2 bishops vs knight a DRAWN in SOME games, where both players play very accurately. True, most people can't calculate hundreds of moves ahead, but that's irrelevant. The rules of chess have to take ALL Possibilities into account. And if u say it only affects .001 percent of games, why is everyone saying it's a must-have?

  • #105
    EndgameStudy schreef:

    Guys, I know how to mate with kngiht ans bishop. I did it against stockfish at maximum level and was able to do it in 37 moves most of the time, occasionally 40. Knight and Bishop mates aren't a problem for me. I'm just sayign for people who don't know how to do them, or aren't good at it, 50 moves is cutting a little too close, GIVEN that it can take up to 33 MOVES with PERFECT play. Also, the endgames like 2 bishops vs knight, which can take up to 78 moves.

    You seem to be weakening your position by implying that you think the rule should allow more than 50 moves, rather than scrapping the rule altogether. Is that correct?

     

    For the particular case of KBN vs K which we seem to be fixating on, it usually requires a lot less than the worst case 32 moves, because it typically results from an ending where the defending side has been guarding against a promoting pawn (and has had to give up a piece for that pawn). So the defending king is often on the edge already. For example, in the above game by Women's World Champion Anna Ushenina, the endgame was entered after 72.Nxc3 with the defending king already in the corner (albeit the "wrong" one). Do you think the Women's World Champion should have been allowed more than 50 moves to win that?

  • #106

    No, I'm not changing my position. No rule like this should exist period. I was saying if it does continue to exist/be enforced, it should at least be 100 moves. I'm not fixating on KBN vs K. In fact, I'm focusing on 2 knights vs Bishop because that's an endgame where it has proven to take AT LEAST over 50 moves with PERFECT PLAY. KBN vs K IS winnable in 50 moves, but the margin of error is too narrow. ANY inaccuracies will add up and can easily take 20 more moves than OPTIMAL. But no, it shouldn't exist period. In cases where the player is making random moves in a knight VS bishop endgame where it's theoretically possible for both sides to mate, they should just agree to a draw. In that case, 10 moves would be stupid. They should just modify the time controls (no 30 sec increments-stupidest increment i've ever heard of) to avoid games that hold up tournaments..etc.

  • #107

    I saw already Patzers trying to mate with only K+B vs K. For them the rule could be 50 billions instead of 50 moves, nothing would change.

  • #108
    torrubirubi wrote:

    I saw already Patzers trying to mate with only K+B vs K. For them the rule could be 50 billions instead of 50 moves, nothing would change.

    That's insufficient mating material, immediate draw.

  • #109
    EndgameStudy schreef:

    No, I'm not changing my position. No rule like this should exist period. I was saying if it does continue to exist/be enforced, it should at least be 100 moves. I'm not fixating on KBN vs K. In fact, I'm focusing on 2 knights vs Bishop because that's an endgame where it has proven to take AT LEAST over 50 moves with PERFECT PLAY. KBN vs K IS winnable in 50 moves, but the margin of error is too narrow. ANY inaccuracies will add up and can easily take 20 more moves than OPTIMAL. But no, it shouldn't exist period. In cases where the player is making random moves in a knight VS bishop endgame where it's theoretically possible for both sides to mate, they should just agree to a draw. In that case, 10 moves would be stupid. They should just modify the time controls (no 30 sec increments-stupidest increment i've ever heard of) to avoid games that hold up tournaments..etc.

    Alright.

    Both KBN vs K and KBB vs KN are extremely rare endgames in practice. A much more common one is KRB vs KR. Theoretical draw (if starting from reasonable position), but very hard to defend accurately. Don't you think it's unfair for the defender if the stronger side is allowed unlimited moves? In practice it would mean that the stronger side would be guaranteed a win (if the players are strong) because it would only be a matter of time before the defender makes a fatal mistake. The attacker has nothing to lose, and no risk, by playing on until that happens.

  • #110
    EndgameStudy wrote:
    torrubirubi wrote:

    I saw already Patzers trying to mate with only K+B vs K. For them the rule could be 50 billions instead of 50 moves, nothing would change.

    That's insufficient mating material, immediate draw.

    Well, I know it, you know it, they did not know it, it was funny to observe.

  • #111
    EndgameStudy wrote:
    FBloggs wrote:
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    The 50 move rule isn't fair. If for example in a knight+bishop endgame, the winning side finally has a forced mate, but the final mating move is move 51 or move 65..etc, it IS STILL A CLEAR WIN , and should not be declared a draw on a technicality. There are also endgames where well over 50 moves are required to force mate. Examples include 2 knights vs. pawn, rook+knight vs bishop+knight, and even one 500 move mate with a queen and knight vs. knight+bishop+rook. The 50 move rule shouldn't just give the losing side a way out of an easily won position

    At the risk of appearing lazy, I would consider the draw a bargain if the alternative was playing another 500 moves for the win.  Man, you must really despise draws.  

    Bro, ther is a guy here complaining that STALEMATE is a draw, which I completely disagree with. Stalemate should, and can only be a draw. I just don't think it's right when someone will mate someone in a few moves, and then the loser tries to count the moves and claim a draw. The point of this rule is to prevent useless ongoing games, but if the game WILL END-(and don't give me this, ohh he won't see the mate in 2 crap), there is no point in utilizing the rule. He will be mated, game over, end of discussion. And if the 50 move rule affects so few games anyway, why is it even enforced? I despise FAKE Draws on technicalities, such as it was move 54..etc. WHO CARES? the games over, so it took 5 extra seconds to make 2 extra moves. Big deal. Ironically it takes more time arguing about the moves and whether or not it should be a draw than it does to make the 3 extra moves and finish the game.

    Funny that you mentioned the guy complaining about the stalemate rule because I thought of him when I saw your post about the 50 move rule.  His point was absurd.  I don't think yours is absurd.  I just think it's impractical.  The rule serves a useful purpose: it limits games to a reasonable length.  If you win a minor piece in the middle game, you've got a winning advantage but you know that if you allow all the other pieces and pawns to be traded off, the game will be drawn.  Obviously you avoid that.  Suppose you win three minor pieces for a rook in the middle game.  You've got a winning advantage and you know that if you allow all the other pieces and pawns to be traded off, you will be able to force mate - but not within 50 moves.  As you said, it will take well over 50 moves with best play.  Since you will not be able to force mate within 50 moves, you know the game will be drawn if you allow it to come down to that.  Therefore you avoid it.  If you're the player with the rook versus three minor pieces, it would make sense for you to try to trade off all the other pieces and pawns.  There's nothing unfair about a rule that applies equally to both sides.  Your opponent might benefit from it in one game and you might benefit from it in another.

  • #112

    By the way, you can argue that the 50 move rule is arbitrary and should be abolished.  But time controls are also arbitrary.  Should they be abolished too?  Difficult positions require more time but does that mean the player with a winning advantage should be allowed enough time to work out the complexities no matter how long it takes him?  The purpose of time controls is to limit the duration of games.  The 50 move rule serves the same purpose.

  • #113

    And why to limit the number of figures? Should the limit of 8 pawns be abolished? Why not to play with boards with 12 pawns or more? Or two kings? Why not two or three or more kings? This stupid rules...

    Sorry, just a little joke :-)

  • #114

    I am playing right now against a guy who just move around with his figures, without pawn breaks and without any possibility (I think) to infiltrate in my position. I have to go on playing, until we reach move 50. A long game, probably a draw.

Top

Online Now